The Religious Discrimination Bill
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
The way the bill is worded doesn’t give atheism the same protection as religion. It should (as in strip the religious protection back to just opinion level) but that’s not what the happy clappers want
- Sep 17, 2019
- 22,311
- 35,357
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #28
Josh Frydenberg standing on a soapbox
the religious right:
What do you mean IF?
Jesus WAS a republican.
Frederick Christ Trump obtained full-time work pulling wagonloads of building materials to construction sites. He found work as a carpenter
Lol
LORD Carey’s claim that Christians in Britain are feeling persecuted has led many people to ask: “So what exactly is persecution then?”
If he actually existed, then yes, they persecuted the bejesus out of him
The Daily Mash presents a simple questionnaire to help you work out how persecuted you are:
Are you excluded from high office, such as being prime minister or the Queen, because of your religion?
Are you completely excluded from society even though you believe in miracles?
Are you prevented from worshipping in, let’s say, a church, on, let’s say, a Sunday morning?
Are you prevented from constantly judging complete strangers?
Are you prevented from sticking your nose into other people’s personal lives?
Do you believe that Lord Carey was elected to the House of Lords?
Does the Today programme ban you from boring the s**t out of everyone with two minutes of sanctimonious drivel every morning?
Are schools, funded largely by people who do not share your views, banned from telling children about your favourite miracles?
Has an organisation, funded largely by people who do not share your views, stopped making Songs of Praise?
Do some of the country’s biggest newspapers ignore you whenever you object to the slightest little thing?
Does Britain celebrate Christmas because it is the birthday of Isaac Newton?
Are you currently enjoying a long weekend to commemorate the untimely death of Judy Garland?
So, are you being persecuted?
All ‘yes’: Britain does not celebrate Christmas because it is the birthday of Isaac Newton. You may actually benefit from some light persecution.
Mostly ‘yes’: Perhaps this really is the time of year when you commemorate Judy Garland. That is deeply fabulous of you. You’re not being persecuted as much as you used to.
50-50: You’re probably always ’50-50′ in these kinds of things. You might want to shake it up a bit.
Mostly ‘no’: You are probably a Roman Catholic and are subject to some persecution, but only if you really want to be the Queen.
All ‘no’: You are an Anglican Christian and you are not being persecuted. Congratulations!
LORD Carey’s claim that Christians in Britain are feeling persecuted has led many people to ask: “So what exactly is persecution then?”
If he actually existed, then yes, they persecuted the bejesus out of him
The Daily Mash presents a simple questionnaire to help you work out how persecuted you are:
Are you excluded from high office, such as being prime minister or the Queen, because of your religion?
Are you completely excluded from society even though you believe in miracles?
Are you prevented from worshipping in, let’s say, a church, on, let’s say, a Sunday morning?
Are you prevented from constantly judging complete strangers?
Are you prevented from sticking your nose into other people’s personal lives?
Do you believe that Lord Carey was elected to the House of Lords?
Does the Today programme ban you from boring the s**t out of everyone with two minutes of sanctimonious drivel every morning?
Are schools, funded largely by people who do not share your views, banned from telling children about your favourite miracles?
Has an organisation, funded largely by people who do not share your views, stopped making Songs of Praise?
Do some of the country’s biggest newspapers ignore you whenever you object to the slightest little thing?
Does Britain celebrate Christmas because it is the birthday of Isaac Newton?
Are you currently enjoying a long weekend to commemorate the untimely death of Judy Garland?
So, are you being persecuted?
All ‘yes’: Britain does not celebrate Christmas because it is the birthday of Isaac Newton. You may actually benefit from some light persecution.
Mostly ‘yes’: Perhaps this really is the time of year when you commemorate Judy Garland. That is deeply fabulous of you. You’re not being persecuted as much as you used to.
50-50: You’re probably always ’50-50′ in these kinds of things. You might want to shake it up a bit.
Mostly ‘no’: You are probably a Roman Catholic and are subject to some persecution, but only if you really want to be the Queen.
All ‘no’: You are an Anglican Christian and you are not being persecuted. Congratulations!
Exactly. Furthermore the fact that the religious can't even agree which god(s) to worship and/or the "correct" way to worship said supernatural beings highlights the fact that by definition, the vast majority of religious people must be holding a belief that is demonstrably rubbish.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
I smile when thinking of the jewish religion and antisemitism
The reason for this is, if there is a god, what is the point of a religion that leads to so much suffering?
Christopher Buttersnip
Beware of the Drop Bears
- Oct 28, 2020
- 4,020
- 10,243
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
It's pandering to the Christian right.
The religious discrimination legislation is a load of bollocks and is nothing more than a call to arms by the Christian Nationalists and those good people who have been sucked in to believe, that Morrison and the Pentecostals follow the teachings of Christ. It's also an attempt to wedge the ALP but that ain't going anyhwere.
The truth is that religious freedoms are already specifically guaranteed under our constitution and the four anti-discrimination acts.
The crap about religious institutions like schools not having the ability to discriminate against hiring staff on the basis of religion to maintain a “faith-based ethos”, is a complete and utter lie. The four anti-discrimination laws make it very clear that discrimination on the basis of religion, is NOT prohibited by federal anti-discrimination legislation.
This bill, if passed, will make discrimination on the basis of religion lawful over and above what are already sensible exemptions.
Last chance saloon for the Supremacist Morrison to get more votes.
The truth is that religious freedoms are already specifically guaranteed under our constitution and the four anti-discrimination acts.
The crap about religious institutions like schools not having the ability to discriminate against hiring staff on the basis of religion to maintain a “faith-based ethos”, is a complete and utter lie. The four anti-discrimination laws make it very clear that discrimination on the basis of religion, is NOT prohibited by federal anti-discrimination legislation.
This bill, if passed, will make discrimination on the basis of religion lawful over and above what are already sensible exemptions.
Last chance saloon for the Supremacist Morrison to get more votes.
- Oct 4, 2016
- 7,397
- 11,646
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Religious bill winds back hard fought protections provided by states
Under the bill’s unprecedented statements of belief provisions, comments that constitute discrimination today, could become lawful tomorrow.
People have not been able to agree about any god, even witch doctor - why is that relevant?
Because people are asking for special exemption for something, that by definition cannot be true. If you can't even agree which god you worship (or in which manner) why should there be a need for special rules?
And what about the flip side - I work for a secular place of learning. Should we able to discriminate on the basis of religious belief? I mean religious belief is totally contrary to what we know about science so should we ensure that religious people don't work in our Universities?
The answer is obviously no and I don't see why religious institutions should be given this right. The right to worship whatever god you wish is already covered in our constitution and in our signing up to the Human Rights charter. There is no need for this legislation.
Millky95
Starchild > You
Christopher Buttersnip
Beware of the Drop Bears
- Oct 28, 2020
- 4,020
- 10,243
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
There are better ways to protect religious freedom
The third round of drafting has produced a bill that ‘fails to satisfy those who want legal protection’ for people such as Israel Folau, whose Rugby Australia contract was terminated in 2019. Picture: AAP
The third round of drafting has produced a bill that ‘fails to satisfy those who want legal protection’ for people such as Israel Folau, whose Rugby Australia contract was terminated in 2019. Picture: AAP
The federal government’s third attempt at a religious discrimination bill will leave few people happy. Prior bills excited heated debate between those advocating stronger protection for religious freedom, including a religious speech by people such as Israel Folau, and those who reject the idea that a person’s faith should permit them to discriminate against others.
Reconciling these positions has proved impossible thus far, and it is clear that this bill again fails to find common ground.
A focal point of debate is the proposal to give special protection to statements of belief. These include a person speaking about the spiritual basis of their faith through to what their doctrine says about other religions or the place of women and same-sex couples in our society. The protection afforded to statements of belief would not extend to other speech unconnected to religion, such as artistic expression, political commentary or matters of conscience.
The latest bill gives significant ground to those who oppose protection for statements of belief. Most obviously, the government has jettisoned the attempt to protect the speech of someone such as Folau. He said in a 2019 social media post: “Warning. Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolators. Hell awaits you. Repent! Only Jesus saves.” Rugby Australia responded by terminating his contract for breaching the players’ code of conduct.
Earlier versions of the bill might have prevented Folau’s dismissal. This is no longer the case as the clause placing obligations on employers has been removed. The bill also excludes protection for any statement of belief that a “reasonable person” considers “would threaten, intimidate, harass or vilify a person or group”. Folau’s comment may fail this test because a reasonable person might view it as threatening or vilifying a long list of groups.
The result of this third round of drafting is a bill that fails to satisfy those who want legal protection for people such as Folau. It also has provoked strong opposition from people who feel it goes too far. Advocacy groups have made clear that they will resist the attempt to exempt statements of belief from state and federal anti-discrimination laws, including those that protect people on the basis of their age, disability, gender, sexual orientation or race.
Opposition also may emerge on free speech grounds. Australia needs stronger protection of freedom of speech, but it is not clear why religious communication should be elevated for special protection over other expression. It is wrong to use the law to prioritise one form of speech over another when a robust democracy depends on all points of view having an equal chance to be put forward.
The result is a bill that may attract lukewarm support from some quarters and outright hostility from others. A broader problem is that the government has tied itself in legal knots. Its attempt to navigate the fraught politics of this issue has produced a 68-page bill with significant legal complexity. The legislation is full of shades of grey, unclear terms and doubts as to its scope.
An example is uncertainty about what it means to act in accordance with beliefs of a particular faith, especially when this may be a point of contention within the religion itself. In the absence of parliament providing clarity, fundamental issues will be left to courts to resolve. Too often, questions of religious freedom will be left mired in expensive litigation.
The complexity and compromises evident in the bill also may be its downfall on constitutional grounds. The federal parliament does not have a general power to pass laws on matters of religion. Instead, it has an “external affairs” power that permits it to implement international treaties and conventions to which Australia is a party. It must do so in ways that conform to these international instruments.
The primary hook for this bill is article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It states indirect language: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.”
The government has moved a long way from implementing article 18. Its bill includes uncertain qualifications such as those on statements of belief and permits those statements to override other rights in the covenant. This raises questions about whether the bill is a valid implementation of Australia’s international obligations. If this bill is enacted, I would not be surprised to see it end up in the High Court.
There is every chance that round three of the bill will fail to pass parliament or be struck down by the High Court. Either outcome means the proponents of religious freedom will have to go back to the drawing board. This would not be a bad thing. Religious belief deserves stronger protection, but not in the way that this bill proposes. It would be better to protect religious freedom, as well as freedom of speech, as part of a comprehensive law protecting democratic rights. Failing that, religious freedom should be safeguarded from discrimination without all of the extra qualifications and points of contention so evident in the government’s bill.
George Williams is a deputy vice-chancellor and professor of law at the University of NSW.
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
My response to George
There are better ways to protect religious freedom
The third round of drafting has produced a bill that ‘fails to satisfy those who want legal protection’ for people such as Israel Folau, whose Rugby Australia contract was terminated in 2019. Picture: AAP
The third round of drafting has produced a bill that ‘fails to satisfy those who want legal protection’ for people such as Israel Folau, whose Rugby Australia contract was terminated in 2019. Picture: AAP
The federal government’s third attempt at a religious discrimination bill will leave few people happy. Prior bills excited heated debate between those advocating stronger protection for religious freedom, including a religious speech by people such as Israel Folau, and those who reject the idea that a person’s faith should permit them to discriminate against others.
Reconciling these positions has proved impossible thus far, and it is clear that this bill again fails to find common ground.
A focal point of debate is the proposal to give special protection to statements of belief. These include a person speaking about the spiritual basis of their faith through to what their doctrine says about other religions or the place of women and same-sex couples in our society. The protection afforded to statements of belief would not extend to other speech unconnected to religion, such as artistic expression, political commentary or matters of conscience.
The latest bill gives significant ground to those who oppose protection for statements of belief. Most obviously, the government has jettisoned the attempt to protect the speech of someone such as Folau. He said in a 2019 social media post: “Warning. Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists, idolators. Hell awaits you. Repent! Only Jesus saves.” Rugby Australia responded by terminating his contract for breaching the players’ code of conduct.
Earlier versions of the bill might have prevented Folau’s dismissal. This is no longer the case as the clause placing obligations on employers has been removed. The bill also excludes protection for any statement of belief that a “reasonable person” considers “would threaten, intimidate, harass or vilify a person or group”. Folau’s comment may fail this test because a reasonable person might view it as threatening or vilifying a long list of groups.
The result of this third round of drafting is a bill that fails to satisfy those who want legal protection for people such as Folau. It also has provoked strong opposition from people who feel it goes too far. Advocacy groups have made clear that they will resist the attempt to exempt statements of belief from state and federal anti-discrimination laws, including those that protect people on the basis of their age, disability, gender, sexual orientation or race.
Opposition also may emerge on free speech grounds. Australia needs stronger protection of freedom of speech, but it is not clear why religious communication should be elevated for special protection over other expression. It is wrong to use the law to prioritise one form of speech over another when a robust democracy depends on all points of view having an equal chance to be put forward.
The result is a bill that may attract lukewarm support from some quarters and outright hostility from others. A broader problem is that the government has tied itself in legal knots. Its attempt to navigate the fraught politics of this issue has produced a 68-page bill with significant legal complexity. The legislation is full of shades of grey, unclear terms and doubts as to its scope.
An example is uncertainty about what it means to act in accordance with beliefs of a particular faith, especially when this may be a point of contention within the religion itself. In the absence of parliament providing clarity, fundamental issues will be left to courts to resolve. Too often, questions of religious freedom will be left mired in expensive litigation.
The complexity and compromises evident in the bill also may be its downfall on constitutional grounds. The federal parliament does not have a general power to pass laws on matters of religion. Instead, it has an “external affairs” power that permits it to implement international treaties and conventions to which Australia is a party. It must do so in ways that conform to these international instruments.
The primary hook for this bill is article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It states indirect language: “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.”
The government has moved a long way from implementing article 18. Its bill includes uncertain qualifications such as those on statements of belief and permits those statements to override other rights in the covenant. This raises questions about whether the bill is a valid implementation of Australia’s international obligations. If this bill is enacted, I would not be surprised to see it end up in the High Court.
There is every chance that round three of the bill will fail to pass parliament or be struck down by the High Court. Either outcome means the proponents of religious freedom will have to go back to the drawing board. This would not be a bad thing. Religious belief deserves stronger protection, but not in the way that this bill proposes. It would be better to protect religious freedom, as well as freedom of speech, as part of a comprehensive law protecting democratic rights. Failing that, religious freedom should be safeguarded from discrimination without all of the extra qualifications and points of contention so evident in the government’s bill.
George Williams is a deputy vice-chancellor and professor of law at the University of NSW.
“Oy justify why religion is any more important than any other opinion. It’s not special and unworthy of protection above other opinions.”
What a complete & utter waste of time.
Climate change, Covid, Corruption.
Nup. Let’s spend the last weeks of 2021 making sure people are free to be awful to each other because God said so.
I despair.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Climate change, Covid, Corruption.
Nup. Let’s spend the last weeks of 2021 making sure people are free to be awful to each other because God said so.
I despair.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
raskolnikov
Cancelled
10k Posts
30k Posts
Wordler
Werewolf Player
Essendon Player Sponsor 2021 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Player Sponsor 2020 - Orazio Fantasia, Anthony McDonald Tipungwuti, Shaun McKernan
Essendon Player Sponsor 2019 - Orazio Fantasia, Anthony McDonald Tipungwuti, Shaun McKernan
Song Contest Winner - 5+ Rounds
Pie eyed
Premium Platinum
- Jun 26, 2007
- 42,590
- 23,335
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Magpies
I find it fitting that Scommo's existence has been reduced to yelling at a perspex screen about protecting the rights of the acolytes of an invisible sky fairy.
It sums him up perfectly.
It sums him up perfectly.
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
Not protecting from harm or discrimination though
Protecting their right to discriminate against others, or to impose their dogma on others
How would he feel if a Buddhist banned all meat eaters from their business because eating flesh is against their faith?
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
well, the easy way for a buddhist food business is running it as vegetarian/ vegan
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
no, im saying its not just that they refuse to serve meat, that they also refuse to serve meat eaters - as they find the practice offensive to their faith
Opine
Norm Smith Medallist
- Aug 30, 2018
- 7,352
- 12,278
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Whether or not you agree with this Bill in its current form, it would be wrong to suggest the AU Constitution prohibits the Cth Gov from legislating regarding religion. On the contrary, 116 contains four separate express guarantees, which may permit enactments that preserve those guarantees. Accordingly, restrictions on Commonwealth power prohibit it from making laws for establishing a particular religion as the national religion, for imposing any religious observance, for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. This Bill doesn't seem to do any of those things directly; therefore, doesn't appear to go beyond power.
Last edited:
- May 2, 2004
- 1,154
- 1,197
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- CreweAlex,SF Giants,Detroit Lions
Let's say I'm a Mennonite and I teach Maths at a Catholic school. If this bill is enacted, and for me to avoid being sacked, do I have to teach Maths that satisfies the school's ethos?
More importantly, are there secular versions of Mathematics?
More importantly, are there secular versions of Mathematics?
Crankyhawk
Brownlow Medallist
how would they know they are meat eaters?
They could possibly ban consumption of meat on their premises maybe (don't walk in munching that hot dog)
Similar threads
